Trivial only in the sense that there was no question Klinger had the right to recover under 17 USC§505; the decision on the case itself was obviously more impor

Trivial only in the sense that there was no question Klinger had the right to recover under 17 USC§505; the decision on the case itself was obviously more important. Even then, though, it was obvious the estate had no case in regards to the out-of-copyright work, and their argument was laughably specious. If their theory had won out, judges would be called upon to do double duty as literary critics, which no sane jurist would go anywhere near. (When a judge calls your appeal "bordering on quixotic," you aren't facing a sympathetic bench.) It is important to note that the lower court did find that the use of elements from in-copyright stories (such as Watson's athletic background, or Holmes' retirement from detective work) would constitute infringement, and that such elements were incremental expressions that were protectable. My expectation is that, until the entire canon is out of copyright, publishers will continue to pay the estate rather than have to run the risk of an author illegally if inadvertently importing still-copyrighted aspects into a story.